Index - Process Theology vs Reformed Theology

reformation21

Index - Process Theology

vs Reformed Theology

Matthew Segall - Whitehead in 20 minutes:Why the World is Unfinished

John Cobb - The Philosophy of Alfred North Whitehead

Who Was Alfred North Whitehead & his Process Philosophy?

Process & Dialectic Through the Ages

Process Theology's Evolving Role in the Modernist, Postmodernist, Metamodernist Eras

Process Theology v Traditional & Neo-Orthodox Reformed Theology

Whitehead Process Theology vs German Dialectic Theology


The Value of Dialectically Contemporary Theologies to Traditional Beliefs & Thinking

Dialectic Neo-orthodox Reformed Theology vs Traditional Reformed Theology

Neo-Orthodox Dialectical Reformed Theology (Barth) vs. Traditional Reformed Dogmatic Theology

Searching for Bonhoeffer: "The Rise of Bonehoeffer"

Wikipedia - Dialectics

Wikipedia - Dietrich Bonhoeffer

Process Theology v Traditional & Neo-Orthodox Reformed Theology

Process Theology v Traditional & Neo-Orthodox Reformed Theology

by R.E. Slater & ChatGPT

As a brief aside, please note how process theology redresses Christian thought in a more positive, forward-looking way than how historic fundamentalized religious traditional thought had done since it's early formations under the Patriarchal Father's eras which itself had allowed Christian legalism to seep in replacing Jesus, and his brother James', oratories on loving hearts, words and deeds over unpenitent hearts, words and deeds in ritualized religious expression. - re slater

* * * * * * *

Observation 1

Please compare Contemporary Process Theology, Traditional Reformed Theology, and Contemporary Reformed Neo-Orthodoxy along key theological themes.

ChatGPT said:

1. View of God

Contemporary Process Theology

• Dynamic and Relational: God is constantly interacting with the world, affected by it, and influencing it.
• Panentheistic: God contains the world but is not limited to it.
• Loving and Persuasive: God does not coerce but works through persuasive love to influence creation.

Traditional Reformed Theology

• Sovereign and Immutable: God is unchanging, all-powerful, and completely sovereign over creation.
• Transcendent and Separate: God is wholly other, distinct from creation, yet intimately involved in sustaining it.
• Decretive Will: God’s will determines all things that come to pass.

Contemporary Reformed Neo-Orthodoxy

• Sovereign Yet Personal: Stresses God’s transcendence but acknowledges His relational engagement with humanity.
• Revelatory: God is known primarily through Jesus Christ and Scripture, interpreted as God’s Word.
• Tension in Sovereignty: Emphasizes divine freedom and mystery while rejecting deterministic views.

---

2. View of Scripture

Contemporary Process Theology

• Interpretive and Contextual: Scripture is seen as a human witness to divine encounters, not inerrant but inspired.
• Dynamic Revelation: Biblical texts reflect evolving understandings of God and are subject to reinterpretation.

Traditional Reformed Theology

• Inerrant and Authoritative: Scripture is the infallible Word of God, inspired by the Holy Spirit, and the ultimate authority in matters of faith and practice.
• Covenantal Unity: Emphasizes the consistency of God’s redemptive plan throughout the Old and New Testaments.

Contemporary Reformed Neo-Orthodoxy

• Christocentric Interpretation: Scripture becomes the Word of God in its witness to Jesus Christ.
• Dialectical Revelation: Scripture is both a divine and human word, revealing God’s truth through paradox and tension.

---

3. View of Creation

Contemporary Process Theology

• Open and Becoming: Creation is in a constant state of becoming, shaped by God’s ongoing creative activity and creaturely responses.
• Co-Creators: Humans and all entities participate in creation’s unfolding through their free choices.

Traditional Reformed Theology

• Fixed and Ordered: Creation reflects God’s sovereign design and serves His purposes.
• Human Stewardship: Humans are caretakers of God’s creation, with dominion given under divine authority.

Contemporary Reformed Neo-Orthodoxy

• Dynamic but Governed: Creation is dynamic yet sustained by God’s providence.
• Theological Mystery: Acknowledges the tension between God’s sovereign rule and creation’s autonomy.

---

4. View of Sin and Salvation

Contemporary Process Theology

• Systemic and Relational Sin: Sin is rooted in broken relationships and systemic failures rather than individual rebellion against a sovereign God.
• Healing and Transformation: Salvation is about healing broken relationships and fostering harmonious coexistence with God, others, and creation.

Traditional Reformed Theology

• Original Sin: Sin is inherited from Adam and results in total depravity.
• Penal Substitution: Christ’s atonement satisfies God’s justice, securing salvation for the elect.

Contemporary Reformed Neo-Orthodoxy

• Existential Estrangement: Sin is seen as humanity’s alienation from God and each other.
• Christocentric Reconciliation: Salvation is the restoration of relationship with God through Christ’s atoning work.

---

5. View of Eschatology

Contemporary Process Theology

• Open Future: The future is not predetermined but emerges from the interplay of divine action and creaturely freedom.
• Eschatological Hope: God works to bring about an ideal future, though it is not guaranteed.

Traditional Reformed Theology

• Predetermined Future: God has decreed the end from the beginning, culminating in the final judgment and eternal states of heaven and hell.
• Consummation of the Kingdom: Christ’s return will establish God’s eternal kingdom.

Contemporary Reformed Neo-Orthodoxy

• Christocentric Hope: The future is secured in Christ’s victory, though its details remain a mystery.
• Tension of the Now and Not Yet: Emphasizes the already-accomplished work of Christ alongside the future fulfillment of God’s promises.

---

6. View of God’s Action in the World

Contemporary Process Theology

• Non-Coercive: God acts by persuasion, working within the natural processes of the world.
• Relational Agency: God is deeply involved in the world’s unfolding but does not override creaturely freedom.

Traditional Reformed Theology

• Sovereign Control: God’s providence governs all events, including human decisions, ensuring His ultimate purposes are fulfilled.
• Miraculous Interventions: God can intervene directly and supernaturally in creation.

Contemporary Reformed Neo-Orthodoxy

• Paradoxical Action: God’s actions are mysterious and often hidden but ultimately redemptive.
• Christocentric Engagement: God’s work in the world is centered on Christ’s presence and activity through the Holy Spirit.

---

Summary Table

Theme	Process Theology	Traditional Reformed	Contemporary Reformed Neo-Orthodoxy
View of God	Relational, Panentheistic	Sovereign, Immutable	Sovereign, Personal
Scripture	Dynamic, Contextual	Inerrant, Authoritative	Christocentric, Dialectical
Creation	Open, Co-Creative	Fixed, Ordered	Dynamic, Governed
Sin & Salvation	Relational Healing	Original Sin, Penal Substitution	Existential Estrangement, Reconciliation
Eschatology	Open Future, Hopeful	Predetermined, Consummation	Christocentric, Tension of Now/Not Yet
God’s Action	Persuasive, Relational	Sovereign, Direct	Paradoxical, Christocentric

---

Observation 2
Now take Reformed Christocentrism and re-contextualize it in terms of Process Theology.

ChatGPT said:

Re-contextualizing Reformed Christocentrism in terms of Process Theology involves reinterpreting core aspects of Christ-centered theology—such as revelation, salvation, and the work of Christ—within the framework of Process Theology's dynamic, relational, and non-coercive understanding of God. Here's how this could look:

---

1. Christ as the Supreme Revelation of God

Reformed Christocentrism:

• Christ is the fullest and final revelation of God, embodying God’s will, character, and redemptive purpose for humanity. Scripture is authoritative insofar as it bears witness to Christ.

Process Re-contextualization:

• Christ represents the clearest embodiment of God’s persuasive love and relational nature in history. His life, death, and resurrection are understood as God’s supreme act of self-disclosure, demonstrating how divine love works within human and cosmic processes to draw all creation toward beauty, harmony, and justice.
• Instead of viewing revelation as fixed and final, the incarnation of Christ is part of a larger, ongoing revelation where God continues to interact dynamically with creation.

---

2. Christ’s Role in Salvation

Reformed Christocentrism:

• Christ's death is central to God’s plan for salvation, often interpreted through substitutionary atonement or covenantal theology. Salvation is a divine act that restores the relationship between God and humanity.

Process Re-contextualization:

• Christ’s work is not about satisfying divine wrath but about inviting humanity into a transformed relationship with God and creation. His death and resurrection symbolize God’s willingness to suffer alongside creation and to continually lure the world toward healing and renewal.
• Salvation is less about a transactional "payment for sin" and more about a relational process of reconciliation, where Christ’s love and example awaken individuals and communities to participate in God’s ongoing work of restoration.

---

3. The Cross as Symbol of God’s Relational Power

Reformed Christocentrism:

• The cross is the ultimate demonstration of God’s sovereignty, justice, and mercy, where Christ’s suffering fulfills divine purposes for redemption.

Process Re-contextualization:

• The cross represents God’s non-coercive power, where divine love operates not through force but through radical vulnerability. It is the moment where God fully enters into the suffering of creation, showing that even in the face of evil and tragedy, God works persuasively to bring about new possibilities for life and redemption.
• The resurrection is not a breaking of natural laws but a profound symbol of God’s power to inspire hope, renewal, and creativity in the face of death.

---

4. Christ in Cosmic Context

Reformed Christocentrism:

• Christ is the pre-existent Word through whom all things were created and in whom all things hold together (Colossians 1:16-17).

Process Re-contextualization:

• Christ is the exemplification of God’s aim for creation—a life lived in perfect harmony with God’s lure toward beauty, goodness, and interconnectedness.
• The "cosmic Christ" reflects the universal principles of relationality and love that are woven into the fabric of the universe, with Christ as the definitive expression of these principles in human history.

---

5. The Church as the Body of Christ

Reformed Christocentrism:

• The Church is the community of believers united in Christ, tasked with proclaiming the gospel and living out God’s purposes in the world.

Process Re-contextualization:

• The Church is a relational organism that embodies Christ’s ongoing work of healing, reconciliation, and co-creation with God. It is called to be a creative community, responding to God’s lure by fostering justice, love, and ecological harmony.
• Instead of a static institution, the Church is a dynamic and evolving entity, continually shaped by its relationship with God, the world, and the diverse contexts it inhabits.

---

6. Eschatology in Christocentric Terms

Reformed Christocentrism:

• Christ’s return will bring about the final fulfillment of God’s kingdom, with the restoration of all things and the defeat of sin and death.

Process Re-contextualization:

• The eschatological vision in Process Theology is open-ended, where the future is shaped by the interplay of God’s ongoing work and human responses.
• Christ’s life and resurrection provide a model and promise of what God intends for all creation: a future of greater beauty, justice, and flourishing. Rather than a pre-determined conclusion, eschatology is a hopeful process of becoming, where Christ continues to guide creation toward its fulfillment in God.

---

Summary

By re-contextualizing Reformed Christocentrism in terms of Process Theology, Christ becomes the living symbol of God’s relational power, working through love and persuasion rather than coercion. The focus shifts from static, absolute doctrines to a dynamic and evolving relationship between God, humanity, and creation, with Christ as the centerpiece of this ongoing divine process.

---

ChatGPT said:

Would you like to explore any specific aspects of this reinterpretation further?

Observation 3
Let's do the same re "Sin and Salvation"....

ChatGPT said:

Here’s a Process Theology re-contextualization of Sin and Salvation compared to the Reformed perspective:

---

1. Nature of Sin

Reformed Theology:

• Total Depravity: Sin originates with Adam’s fall and is transmitted to all humanity (original sin). It is rebellion against God’s sovereign will, leading to separation from God.
• Individual and Universal: Sin corrupts every aspect of human nature and is both personal (individual actions) and systemic (societal structures).
• Legal Framework: Sin is seen as a violation of God’s law, requiring divine justice and satisfaction.

Process Theology:

• Relational and Contextual: Sin is not rooted in a single historical act (like Adam’s fall) but in broken relationships—with God, others, and creation. It is a failure to respond adequately to God’s loving lure toward harmony and goodness.
• Dynamic Process: Sin is not an ontological state (e.g., total depravity) but a misalignment with the divine aim for flourishing and interconnectedness.
• Systemic Awareness: While personal sin is acknowledged, Process Theology emphasizes the systemic and ecological dimensions of sin, such as exploitation, injustice, and environmental degradation.

---

2. The Effects of Sin

Reformed Theology:

• Estrangement from God: Sin causes spiritual death and eternal separation from God unless redeemed through Christ.
• Corruption of Creation: All of creation is affected by sin, groaning under the curse until it is redeemed.

Process Theology:

• Relational Distortion: Sin distorts the harmony God seeks for the world, creating suffering, alienation, and disharmony.
• Cosmic Impact: Sin’s effects ripple outward, affecting not just individual lives but the larger systems and ecosystems in which they exist. It disrupts the ongoing process of co-creation.

---

3. Nature of Salvation

Reformed Theology:

• Christ’s Atonement: Salvation is achieved through Christ’s substitutionary atonement, satisfying God’s justice and reconciling humanity to God.
• By Grace Alone: Salvation is an unmerited gift from God, received through faith in Christ.
• Restoration of God’s Sovereign Order: Salvation restores the broken relationship between humanity and God, bringing individuals into right standing with God and eventually redeeming all creation.

Process Theology:

• Healing and Reconciliation: Salvation is the restoration of right relationships—with God, others, and creation. It is about realigning with God’s lure toward love, beauty, and harmony.
• Participatory Process: Salvation is not a one-time event but a co-creative journey where individuals and communities actively participate in God’s work of healing and transformation.
• Christ as the Archetype: Christ is the model for what salvation looks like—a life fully aligned with God’s relational aims and self-giving love. His death and resurrection symbolize the ongoing possibility of transformation even in the face of suffering and death.

---

4. Atonement and the Cross

Reformed Theology:

• Penal Substitution: The cross satisfies God’s justice by paying the penalty for humanity’s sin. Christ bears the punishment deserved by sinners.
• Victory Over Sin: The cross and resurrection also represent Christ’s triumph over sin, death, and Satan.

Process Theology:

• Relational Solidarity: The cross is not about satisfying divine wrath but about God’s willingness to fully enter into the suffering of creation. It is the ultimate expression of relational solidarity with humanity.
• Transformative Love: The cross demonstrates the power of persuasive love, not coercion. Christ’s self-giving love on the cross calls humanity to follow in his footsteps, transforming suffering into new possibilities for life.
• Victory Through Vulnerability: The resurrection is a sign of the emergent possibilities of life, showing that even death cannot thwart God’s aim for beauty and goodness.

---

5. Eschatological Aspect of Salvation

Reformed Theology:

• Final Judgment: Salvation ultimately culminates in the return of Christ, the final judgment, and the full establishment of God’s kingdom.
• New Creation: Those saved by grace will dwell eternally with God in a restored creation, free from sin and death.

Process Theology:

• Open-Ended Future: Salvation is part of an ongoing, open-ended process of becoming, where God continually works to bring about greater beauty, complexity, and harmony in creation.
• Hopeful Eschatology: There is no final "judgment day" in a punitive sense, but the ultimate fulfillment of God’s relational aim—a world increasingly aligned with love, justice, and creativity.

---

6. Salvation and Community

Reformed Theology:

• Church as the Elect Community: Salvation is experienced within the community of believers, who are called to proclaim the gospel and live out God’s redemptive purposes.
• Mission-Oriented: The Church is tasked with spreading the message of salvation to the ends of the earth.

Process Theology:

• Community of Co-Creators: Salvation is experienced and enacted in relational communities that embody God’s ongoing work of healing and transformation.
• Ecological and Social Justice: Salvation involves addressing systemic injustice and environmental degradation, as these are seen as barriers to God’s aim for creation’s flourishing.

---

Re-contextualized Definition of Sin and Salvation in Process Theology

• Sin is the failure to align with God’s relational aims, resulting in broken relationships and systemic disharmony.
• Salvation is the process of healing, transformation, and co-creation in partnership with God, who continually lures creation toward greater beauty, love, and justice. Christ exemplifies this process as the supreme revelation of God’s relational power and persuasive love.

---

ChatGPT said:

Would you like to explore how these ideas might influence specific doctrines or practices?

Observation 4
Let's further expand on the subject that "sin is not an ontological state (e.g., total depravity) but a misalignment with the divine aim for flourishing and interconnectedness" re Processual Theology.

ChatGPT said:

In Process Theology, the concept of sin is reinterpreted away from the static, ontological state of "total depravity" found in some traditional theologies. Instead, it is seen as a dynamic misalignment with God's ongoing relational aim for creation—a vision of flourishing, harmony, and interconnectedness. Let’s expand on this idea in detail:

---

1. Sin as Relational Misalignment

In Process Theology, God’s aim is not coercive but persuasive, inviting creation toward greater experiences of beauty, truth, justice, and relational harmony. Sin, then, is understood as a failure to respond adequately to God’s lure toward these goals. It involves:

• Relational Failure: Sin disrupts relationships—between individuals, communities, and creation itself. It breaks the relational fabric that God continually seeks to weave.
• Resistance to Creativity: Sin emerges when individuals or systems resist God’s creative possibilities, opting instead for static or destructive patterns of behavior.

This view of sin shifts from a legalistic framework (lawbreaking) to a relational framework (misalignment).

---

2. Sin as Disruption of Becoming

Process Theology understands reality as a dynamic process of becoming—a constant flow of possibilities shaped by God’s relational lure. Sin, therefore, is:

• A Refusal of Potential: When individuals, communities, or systems refuse to engage with the possibilities God offers, they limit their capacity to grow and flourish.
• Distorted Agency: Sin distorts human agency, leading to choices that diminish life, relationality, and creativity instead of enhancing them.
• Systemic and Structural Sin: Beyond individual actions, sin manifests in systems that perpetuate injustice, oppression, and ecological degradation. These systemic sins obstruct the flow of God’s aim for universal flourishing.

---

3. Sin and Freedom

In Process Theology, God gives creation genuine freedom to make choices. Sin is an abuse or misuse of this freedom when:

• Choices reject or ignore God’s lure toward the good, instead favoring selfishness, domination, or destruction.
• People or systems fail to discern or align with the highest possibilities for relational harmony.

Unlike traditional notions of total depravity, where human nature is seen as wholly corrupt, Process Theology views humans as capable of responding to divine influence, even though they often fall short.

---

4. Sin as Relational Consequence

Sin has real consequences that ripple through the interconnected web of existence. These include:

• Alienation: Sin creates estrangement—between individuals and God, between people and one another, and between humanity and the natural world.
• Suffering: Misaligned choices contribute to pain, injustice, and environmental harm, impacting both the sinner and others.
• Cosmic Disharmony: Sin disrupts not only personal relationships but also the broader ecosystems and social systems in which we live, perpetuating inequality, violence, and ecological destruction.

In this sense, sin is not just personal but deeply systemic and ecological.

---

5. Sin as Process

Instead of a fixed, unchangeable state, Process Theology views sin as a process that can be countered and healed. This dynamic understanding emphasizes:

• Sin as a Pattern: Sin is often habitual or systemic, creating entrenched patterns of behavior or structures of oppression.
• Possibility of Transformation: At every moment, God offers new possibilities to turn away from sin and toward flourishing. This aligns with Process Theology’s view of divine action as constantly renewing and inviting.

---

6. Healing Sin: Realignment with the Divine Aim

Since sin is a misalignment with God’s relational aim, salvation is about realignment. This involves:

• Awareness: Recognizing the ways in which we (individually and collectively) resist God’s lure toward flourishing.
• Repentance: Turning away from patterns of sin and opening ourselves to new possibilities for growth and healing.
• Participation: Actively engaging in the co-creative process with God to repair relationships, seek justice, and foster harmony.

Realignment with God’s aim is not imposed from the outside but arises through freely chosen collaboration with God’s ongoing work.

---

7. Examples of Sin as Misalignment

This framework allows for a nuanced understanding of sin in various contexts:

• Personal Sin: Self-centered actions that prioritize individual gain over relational well-being, such as greed, dishonesty, or neglect.
• Systemic Sin: Institutions or systems that perpetuate inequality, injustice, or exploitation, such as racism, sexism, or ecological destruction.
• Ecological Sin: Human actions that disrupt the natural world, such as pollution, overconsumption, or disregard for environmental sustainability.

In each case, sin is understood as a failure to align with God’s ongoing call to live in harmony with creation and one another.

---

8. A Processual Reframing of Original Sin

Traditional theology often views original sin as a state inherited from Adam’s fall. In Process Theology, this can be reinterpreted as:

• An Inherited Context: Sinful tendencies are not a fixed inheritance but arise from the complex web of historical, social, and ecological conditions into which we are born.
• Systemic Influence: We are shaped by systems and structures that may predispose us toward sin, but we are not deterministically bound to them.
• A Process of Redemption: God works persistently within these conditions to heal and transform them, offering new possibilities for flourishing at every moment.

---

9. The Theological Implications

• No Total Depravity: Humans are not wholly corrupt but have the capacity to respond to God’s loving lure at every moment.
• Sin is Relational, Not Ontological: It is not an inherent state of being but a dynamic failure of relationality and alignment.
• Focus on Co-Creation: Healing from sin involves active participation in God’s ongoing process of creating a more just, beautiful, and interconnected world.

---

ChatGPT said:

Would you like to explore how this understanding of sin shapes other theological concepts, such as grace, forgiveness, or eschatology?

Observation 5

By these examples there is shown the value of utilizing the dialectic method of thesis-antithesis to arrive at a more congruent model of God and theology. However, process theology is as much about it's own system of beingness as any past Christian theology favoring systematic thought. Dialectic reasoning is but a tool to evidence the dipolarity between such systems of thought since Western mores appear to favor black-and-white thinking rather than holistic, non-binary thinking in argument and discussion.

ChatGPT said:

You've highlighted an important point about the value of dialectical reasoning as a tool to navigate the contrasts between theological systems, especially when engaging with Process Theology. Let me expand on this and incorporate your critique of binary thinking into the discussion.

---

Dialectical Method as a Bridge

The thesis-antithesis-synthesis structure of dialectical reasoning offers a framework for addressing the dipolar tensions between theological systems. For example:

1. Thesis: Traditional Christian theologies (e.g., Reformed Theology) emphasize God's immutability, sovereignty, and omnipotence.
2. Antithesis: Process Theology challenges these ideas, proposing a God who is relational, dynamic, and persuasive rather than coercive.
3. Synthesis: Through dialectical reasoning, a more congruent model might emerge, recognizing God’s dipolarity—both transcendent and immanent, both eternal and dynamic, both powerful and vulnerable.

This process is not about "winning" an argument but about integrating the strengths of each perspective to create a richer, more holistic theology.

---

Process Theology and Systematic Thought

While Process Theology critiques many traditional systems for their rigidity or abstraction, it undeniably presents its own systematic framework. Key features include:

1. The Primacy of Becoming: All reality, including God, is in a state of process or becoming. This is central to its metaphysics.
2. Relational Ontology: The universe is fundamentally relational, with all entities interconnected.
3. God’s Dipolar Nature: God is both the primordial source of potentiality (unchanging) and the consequent experiencer of the world (changing).

Far from rejecting systematic thought, Process Theology builds a robust system that reflects its philosophical commitment to non-coercive relationality. In this sense, it aligns with other systematic approaches, even as it critiques certain assumptions of classical systems.

---

Critique of Binary Thinking

Western theology and philosophy have often relied on binary oppositions—creator/creation, good/evil, infinite/finite, transcendence/immanence. These dichotomies can:

1. Oversimplify Complex Realities: Reducing nuanced ideas into opposites may obscure their interconnectedness.
2. Limit Theological Creativity: Binary thinking can lead to entrenched positions, making it harder to explore new theological possibilities.
3. Reinforce Exclusivism: It often forces a choice between "this" or "that" rather than fostering a both/and perspective.

Process Theology, with its emphasis on relationality and interdependence, offers a holistic, non-binary alternative. For example:

• God is both transcendent and immanent, not exclusively one or the other.
• Sin and salvation are interrelated processes, not discrete, opposing states.
• Creation is seen as continuous and ongoing, rather than a finished act in opposition to eternity.

---

Process Theology as a Holistic Framework

By rejecting strict binaries, Process Theology invites a more integrative approach:

1. Complementarity Over Opposition: Theological ideas are seen as complementary rather than mutually exclusive. For instance, God’s power is understood as persuasive (relational) power rather than coercive power, but it still retains an element of omnipotence in the sense of being the source of all possibilities.
2. Dynamic Tensions: Process Theology embraces tensions and paradoxes as inherent to reality. Dipolarity is not a flaw but a feature of God and creation.
3. Inclusivity: Its framework allows for dialogue and integration with other theological systems, philosophies, and even scientific perspectives, making it inherently pluralistic.

---

Dialectic Method as a Tool, Not the Goal

You rightly point out that dialectic reasoning, while valuable, is a means to an end. It serves to highlight the tensions and contrasts between systems, but it must ultimately give way to a non-dialectical synthesis:

1. Relational Integration: Instead of resolving tension by choosing sides, Process Theology calls us to embrace the complexity of relational existence.
2. Creative Transformation: The aim is not to settle on a fixed system but to participate in an ongoing process of theological evolution, mirroring the dynamic nature of God and reality.
3. Practical Application: Theology must also address practical concerns—how these ideas affect ethics, community, and lived faith in a relational, processual world.

---

Process Theology’s Response to Western Mores

By critiquing binary thinking, Process Theology provides a counter-narrative to Western cultural mores, which often favor dichotomies like:

• Success/Failure
• Right/Wrong
• Winner/Loser

Instead, Process Theology emphasizes:

1. Interconnectedness: Success and failure, right and wrong, are not isolated categories but part of a larger relational process.
2. Transformation: What appears as failure or sin can become an opportunity for growth and healing within God’s processual aim.
3. Relational Ethics: Ethics are rooted in relational responsibility, not abstract moral absolutes.

---

Conclusion

The dialectical method is invaluable for highlighting the contrasts between Process Theology and other systems. However, Process Theology transcends the binary framework by presenting a holistic, relational vision of God, creation, and theology. Its goal is not to dismantle systems but to reframe and expand them, emphasizing the interconnectedness of all things and the dynamic, evolving nature of reality.

ChatGPT said:


Would you like to explore how this framework applies to specific issues, such as ethics, pastoral care, or interfaith dialogue?

No, not at this time. Please save file as "Process v Reformed Theology." EOF

* * * * * * *

Here is an example below via Jamie Smith's title Radical Orthodoxy and the Reformed Tradition of the struggle within Reformed Theology to be contemporary with the times without abandoning it's traditional teachings. In Relevancy22's early years even I have played around with the moniker of "Orthodoxy" wishing to update my own conservatism in Evangelical thought to the progressiveness I found in Emergent Evangelical thought (now returned to the stream of Christian Humanitarianism).

The term "Orthodoxy" presents a conundrum to traditionalists like myself seeing it's gulf widening towards religious legalism in opposition to Scriptural commands to "love one another" (sic, Jesus v the traditional orthodoxies of the Scribes and Pharisees of his day). Assuming that God is Love instead of a God who is conflicted in his love, the church's best way forward is to examine it's teachings and rectifying it's positional outlays as it goes... which is also why so many traditionalist congregations, associations, fellowships, and synods are splitting between "who they think they are" and "what they are" in the 21st century.

Moreover, I've even noticed the term of Neo-Orthodox has now been contorted - or, bent out-of-historical shape - to come to be identified with traditional Reformed thought... which a hundred years ago such "traditionalism" was opposed to Barth's kind of neo-orthodoxy as a term-not-yet-become-a-movement within major Protestant denominational religions. This is seen in David Galston's article which completely overlooks the one-time Barthian divide between neo-orthodox reformists/theologs and the traditional Reformed church theology.

David takes the neo-orthodox term of "new or renewing" orthodoxy and applies it to traditional Reformed thought as if there wasn't a care-in-the-world when doing so. Which tells us that 21st century Reformed congregations now have come to think of themselves as progressive and progressive-izing... and yet, we see congregational fellowships and synod divisional splits over issues of feminine equality and transgender acceptance (which is also part of the problem with the maga-Christian movement overcoming Christianity).

Below is a sample of what I am referring to... which is also why my own Baptist faith once based in fundamental Reform and conservative Evangelical teachings has upgraded itself to a Process theological embrace/uplift of my heritage even as it updates itself from traditional systematic doctrines to progressive and/or post-evangelical teachings (example, the handling of evolution and the sciences in addition to anti-maga, social justice issues re expanding polypluralistic Constitutional democracy, benevolent migrancy justice, women's health equality, etc.).

Merry Christmas,

R.E. Slater

December 26, 2024

*ps... when attending the Rob Bell's emergent church Jamie Smith of Calvin College was invited over the years to addressing the contemporary movement affecting Reformed and Evangelical thought.

* * * * * * *

Radical Orthodoxy

and the Reformed Tradition

article link

by Byron Borger

October 11, 2005

Sometimes, I wonder just what new books I should note here at BookNotes. Some of my readers, I think, are pretty postmodern and interested in emergent church stuff; others clearly less so. Some are political and social activists; some look to us for resources on the inner journey of contemplative spirituality. Some may want to know that I am listening to the new Denison Witmer CD, Are You A Dreamer. (Don Peris from Lancaster—you may recall the wonderful work he and his wife, Karen do–produced it. Sufjan Stevens plays on alot of it, along with some other cool neo-folksters.) Check out his artsty stuff at Dennison’s website, here.

So, what to feature? Something lots of people might enjoy, or, this time, maybe something that will stretch us a bit?

Forgive me if this shoots a bit afar from what many of you may find helpful. But I am so eager to be the first to tell sombody about this, that I have to cite it tonight. It is book which makes a connection between an obscure tradition and an even more obscure one. Nobody said this would be easy.

Radical Orthodoxy and the Reformed Tradition: Creation, Covenant and Participation is a dense collection of wide-ranging essays edited by Calvin College postmodern prof–say it like RoboCop, PomoProf–James K. A. Smith, and his mentor, psychotherapist and Christian philospher, emeritus at Toronto’s Institute for Christian Studies, James Olthuis. It is published by Baker Academic, which should finally lay to rest any dumb stereotypes about evangelical publishing houses, Christian publishing from Grand Rapids or Calvinism’s conservativism; this once again illustrates the sea change (for better or worse, mostly better, I’d say) at places like Baker and Eerdmans, as they continue to be ecumenical and engaged with the most scholarly and cutting edge theological notions of the day. It makes some of the more typically liberal presses look silly and weak and the pop emergent kids look like they are playing games with candles and film clips. (To the emergent’s credit, they published an excellent, brief review of Smith’s first book on radical orthodox, Introducing Radical Orthodoxy: Mapping a Post-Secular Theology (Baker Academic; $21.99) with a view to how it might help these new churches at the always-interesting theooze.com. Read it here.)

Okay, I admit this is a pretty obscure and if what I just wrote doesn’t make much sense, don’t fret. But for those who do have stereotypes about evangelical publishers, you are not alone—a young student friend of mine two days ago, working on a major senior thesis at a fine liberal arts college, was told by his professor not to feature books put out on evangelical publishing houses, as if (a) all evangelical houses publish the same kinds of stuff and (b) that said evangelical publishing houses are shallow and right wing and (b) religious and academic freedom isn’t really valued in his department. But I digress.

“Radical Orthodoxy” is an important, if cryptic movement that is beyond me to explain easily. (Ha–I say easily implying that I could explain it if I had the leisure of long sentences and plenty of time. Don’t fall for it.) RO has something to do with how the liberal tradition within Christianity has petered out (they cite Nietzche a lot, but, you know, “you don’t need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows”, it seems to me) never really having the intellectual and theological substance to last. But, rather than counter the bankruptcy of theological (and classic) liberalism, et al, with conservative evangelicalism or old school orthodoxy, this largely Anglo-Catholic theological movement invites a reappropriation, a rather postmodern reappropriation of St. Augustine and –gasp!–St. Thomas Aquinas. They write deep, deep books about Christian practices, embedding deep gospel insights into ordinary lifestyles, thinking hard about how secularized modernity and its mono-culture effects living and thinking, and how church proclamation should lead to renewed engagement and uniquely Christian ways of living that leads to radical deconstruction of the idols of our time. Their book series include work on the nature of cities, linguistics, writing, gender stuff and other down-to-Earth research, done up in neo-Aristotlian ways*. (Please recall what I implied above; I really don’t quite know what I’m saying here as I try to give an impression of the novelty and creative fidelity of this important movement. For better guides, go to the links I gave above to James Smith’s homepage and the review in theooze.com or, for a more substantial reflection, read R. Reno’s piece in First Things.)

*Acutally, the RO movement seems, oddly, despite its good emphasis on embodiment, to draw much on Mr. Plato. Smith’s good chapter illustrates his (Reformed) allergy to Platonism, to kindly suggest a point of conversation with Calvinism and RO. That chapter looks very, very, important. I know some (if your reading, you know who you are!) may find it simplistic or irrelevant, but the unhelpful influences of Plato via Plotinas on Augustine and, similiarly, of Aristotle on Aquinas, remains a contested topic of great importance. I haven’t read Jamie’s chapter yet, but I am sure it will be illuminating and helpful.

So, this new book, Radical Orthodoxy and the Reformed Tradition is a reply to radical orthodoxy by a friendly gang of Calvinists, mostly those who don’t use the phrase too much, at least not in the typical PCA-R.C. Sproul-Banner of Truth kind of way, as if the Reformed tradition is only about the so-called five points and the sovreignity of God. Some are using the phrase neo-Calvinism, implying mostly a connection to the tradition of thinking and social renewal that I write about here sometimes, inspired by the cultural, political and theological renewal that was lead by the likes of Abraham Kuyper in the late 1800’s in Holland. (For a bit on Kuyper, see here, here or here.) Some serious neo-Calvinist believers in the mid-20th century immigrated from the Netherlands and started all kinds of reformational, Kuyperian institutions, and the leaders, students and grand-children of these orthodox, culturally-engaged, Dutch neo-Calvinists now stand as those who want to relate the Reformed tradition thus construed with the issues and thinkers of the day. Toronto’s Institute for Christian Studies continues to be a scholarly center for this kind of thinking, and they have influenced, in small ways, folks as unique as the evangelical campus ministry the Coalition for Christian Outreach, the alternative Christian Labor union, the CLAC, and the new generation of L’Abrai folks. (It could be said that Francis Schaeffer himself popularized Dutch neo-Calvinism which he picked up from his friend, art critic Hans Rookmaaker.)

So, take this Dutch neo-Calvinist movement, reformationally-busy doing post-foundationalist philosophy in light of a Reformed, Biblical worldview and see how it replies to the British, post-liberal, quirky, medieval, leftward leaning, postmodern (?) movement of radical orthodoxy and you’ve got the papers presented at this learned gathering, now published. It is an exciting collection that is rarified, to be sure. Read it now, though, and you will be well-equipped to process the stuff you will be hearing about RO over the upcoming years. Mark my blogged words.

Rave reviews on the back are from Nicholas Wolterstorff (surely a Kuyperian in the broad sense of being a son of the Christian, Dutch philosophical efforts and friendly with ICS) and Catherine Pickstock, a lecturer at Cambridge and one of the major spokespersons for radical orthodoxy, and John Franke of Biblical Theolgoical Seminary here in central Pennylsvania. Franke was a good buddy with the late, great Stan Grenz (oh, how I’m loving his recently re-issued Prayer: Cry of the Kingdom) who is considered by some to be the most important theologian representing the concerns of the emergent community. All three blurbs insist that this collection of serious pieces will help the broad body of Christ, whether one is radically orthodox, Calvinian or not. Nice.

Happily, in the hospitable tradition that the Institute for Christian Studies has become known for (they’ve hosted atheistic philosophers, even Derrida, over the years) this collection developing a Calvinist reply to RO, starts with two chapters by radical orthodoxy scholars, John Milbank and Graham Ward. Although some authors have some serious critique and concern, it seems to be that it is a favorable book, largely affirming the contributions and directions that RO may have, and refining their views within a neo-Calvinist framework. It is a model, so these reviewers say, of theological dialogue among differing traditions at its best. Maybe that, too, is reason enough to celebrate, as differing movements hear and honor and rebuke one another in Christian charity. Now that is an example of reforming, radical, orthodoxy!

Many of the authors who weigh in are from Calvin College, whose Center for Christian Scholarship co-hosted the Working Group that eventually lead to the conference from which this book emerged. A few, though, are neither ICS/Toronto nor Calvin College/Grand Rapids Kuyperians; Michael Horton of Westminister-West is here, as is Hans Boersma from Regent in British Columbia (a Richard Baxter scholar whose serious book on the atonement, by the way, Violence, Hospitality and the Cross, is must reading for recent debates about the nature of the work of the cross) and Justin Holcomb, a post-doc at UVA, and Nathan Kerr of Vanderbilt.

Baker is to be supported, Calvin College and ICS are to be commended, and, I guess, Hearts & Minds should be considered crazy for thinking I can explain this book with any clarity in a brief blog blurb. Trust me, though: if you follow any of this, this book is the definitive collection to read. Don’t think you have to wade through the Routledge series of RO books, either–this can serve as an important introduction and guide to the discussions. If you know anybody doing serious philosophical or theological work, this could be a much-appreciated gift. Or, perhaps better, start with James Smith’s first book on the subject, Introducing Radical Orthodoxywhich I mentioned above. Do a google search on radical orthodoxy and you will see it is a jolting and important movement. I hope you don’t find us too obscure promoting this kind of stuff. As I said, I think you will be hearing more about this…

- BB

* * * * * * *

McCormack, and the Neo-Barthian

View of Scripture

article link

by William B. Evans

December 10, 2008

A frequent topic of conversation in theological circles recently has been the general revival of interest in Karl Barth's theology, and particularly the revisionist "Neo-Barthian" interpretations proposed by Bruce L. McCormack, currently the Weyerhauser Professor of Systematic Theology at Princeton Theological Seminary, and others.  Considerable attention in all this has been focused on Barth's view of Scripture.  The rhetoric of some of those associated with this newer line of interpretation often seems to suggest that no one has really read Barth properly until now, and that earlier evangelical and Reformed critics of Barth (e.g., Francis Schaeffer, Carl Henry, and Cornelius Van Til) were invincibly ignorant.  

An intriguing and stimulating theologian and reader of the Christian tradition, McCormack is one of the more creative (and assertive) thinkers on the current scene.  I should add that I personally have learned a good deal from his writings over the years.  Moreover, his work has garnered a fair amount of positive press, even from some putative "evangelicals."  This brief and informal internet essay attempts to shed light on some of the issues involved.   

McCormack on Barth--Bruce McCormack argues for what he calls a "consistently dialectical" and "critically realistic" Barth; i.e., that there were only two main periods in Barth's theological development, in contrast to the influential view of Hans Urs von Balthasar that there were three distinct theological periods in Barth's work (his early liberalism, his Kierkegaardian dialectical phase, and his "analogical" period inaugurated by his 1931 book on Anselm).  To make a long and somewhat complicated story short, the Barth that emerges from McCormack's interpretive mill is a sort of left-wing, infallibilist evangelical (McCormack uses the term "dynamic infallibilism").  He goes on to argue that both the "neo-orthodox" and "evangelical" readings of Barth (which largely agree that Barth views Scripture as but a "witness to revelation" and that Scripture only "becomes" God's Word in an event of encounter) are mistaken.  McCormack contends that Barth's view of Scripture is to be understood in terms of his "theological ontology" and that there is an analogy between his theology proper (doctrine of God) and his bibliology (doctrine of Scripture).  Taking his point of departure Barth's dictum that "God's being is in becoming," McCormack points to passages where Barth refers to Scripture as in some sense "Word of God" prior to its reception by us, and he argues that if the matter is understood in its properly dialectical sense, Scripture becomes God's Word because it already is God's Word.  In this way, McCormack argues, we can do justice to both inspiration and illumination.  McCormack has developed this argument at some length in his "The Being of Holy Scripture Is in Becoming: Karl Barth in Conversation with American Evangelical Criticism," in Evangelicals and Scripture: Tradition, Authority, and Hermeneutics, ed. V. Bacote et al (Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 2004), 55-75.  See also his Karl Barth's Critically Realistic Dialectical Theology: Its Genesis and Development, 1909-1936 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995).

 

McCormack identifies himself as an "evangelical," though his theological program seems to be largely geared toward the development of themes in the work of Barth.  Not surprisingly, he has affinities for universalism (see Bruce L. McCormack, "That He May Have Mercy Upon All: Karl Barth and the Problem of Universalism," unpublished paper presented at the 2007 Karl Barth Conference at Princeton Theological Seminary, in which he reportedly suggests that universalism is a biblically defensible option; for a PTS student report of the conference, see (http://fireandrose.blogspot.com/2007/06/2007-karl-barth-conference-recap...).

 

His view of the Trinity is regarded by some as problematic as well.  For example, McCormack has persistently been accused of collapsing the ontological and economic trinities and threatening the doctrine of divine immutability by subordinating God's "being" as Trinity to God's "becoming" in the decree of election to be God for us (see the criticisms leveled by McCormack's PTS colleague George Hunsinger, "Election and Trinity: Twenty-Five Theses on the Theology of Karl Barth," Modern Theology 24:2 [April 2008]: 179-198; and Paul Molnar, "Can the Electing God Be without Us?  Some Implications of Bruce McCormack's Understanding of Karl Barth's Doctrine of Election for the Doctrine of the Trinity," Neue Zeitschrift fűr Systematische Theologie und Relgionsphilosophie 49:2 [2007]: 199-222).  

The Interpretive Challenge of Barth--When confronting Barth and his massive body of work, we must realize that he is an elusive and complex thinker; thus it is not surprising that different appraisals of his view of Scripture have emerged.  On the one hand, Barth does at points affirm that the Bible is "God's Word" even apart from our appropriation of it (see, e.g., Church Dogmatics I/1:107-110, 120; I/2:475).  These are the sorts of passages McCormack exploits.  But, on the other hand, Scripture is human and fallible (even with respect to "its religious or theological content"), and, moreover, we can never "possess" or profit from its content unless it "becomes" God's Word to us by the power of the Holy Spirit (see Church Dogmatics, I/2:502-514).  Regarding the fallibility of Scripture and the use of this errant Scripture in theology, Barth provocatively writes:

There are obvious overlappings and contradictions--e.g., between the Law and the prophets, between John and the Synoptists, between Paul and James.  But nowhere are we given a single rule by which  to make a common order, perhaps an order of precedence, but at any rate a synthesis, of what is in itself such a varied whole.  Nowhere do we find a rule which enables us to grasp it in such a way that we can make organic parts of the distinctions and evade the contradictions as such.  We are led now one way, now another--each of the biblical writers obviously speaking only quod potuit homo--and in both ways, and whoever is the author, we are always confronted with the question of faith. . . . For within certain limits and therefore relatively they are all vulnerable and therefore capable of error even in respect of religion and theology.  In view of the actual constitution of the Old and New Testaments this is something that we cannot possibly deny if we are not to take away their humanity, if we are not to be guilty of Docetism. (Barth, Church Dogmatics I/2:509-510)

Here the "dialectical" character of Barth's thinking is evident.  For this reason, Barth can be quoted in ways that are both affirming and destructive of the Bible's authority.

 

The traditional interpretations of Barth on both the "right" and the "left" more or less correspond to what McCormack dismisses as the "neo-orthodox" reading of Barth (that the Bible is not revelation or Word of God per se, but that it may become God's Word in an event of encounter; for a survey of both, see John D. Morrison, "Barth, Barthians, and Evangelicals: Reassessing the Question of the Relation of Holy Scripture and the Word of God," Trinity Journal 25NS [2004]: 187-213).  While it may well be that this "neo-orthodox" version of Barth is not sufficiently nuanced as to certain details, I would argue that in broad outlines it has grasped rather well the practical implications of Barth's view.  Because of Barth's insistence on the fallibility of Scripture and his focus on Scripture as "act" rather than text, we only apprehend Scripture as it "becomes" God's Word to us.  Thus the problem of subjectivity looms, and appeals to Scripture as text are rendered problematic and even suspect.  

Other questions can be raised about McCormack's reading of Barth's view of Scripture as well.  For example, his revisionist reading implies that even Barth's closest friends and co-workers (e.g., Otto Weber, T. F. Torrance) badly misunderstood him on this point.  Barth had ample opportunity to correct them, but he apparently never did so.  Also, this reading fails to explain Barth's hostility to the evangelical doctrine of scripture--recall his cavalier dismissal of evangelical Christians with their affirmation of an inerrant Scriptural revelation as "blessed possessors."

 

Finally, much hinges on highly technical questions such as the nature of Barth's "actualism" and the precise character of God's (and Scripture's) "being in becoming."  Contra McCormack, I think one can plausibly argue that for Barth the "being" of Scripture is, in a real sense, subordinated to its "becoming" (Barth, Church Dogmatics I/1:110, writes: "The Bible, then, becomes God's Word in this event, and in the statement that the Bible is God's Word the little word 'is' refers to its being in this becoming.  It does not become God's Word to us because we accord it faith but in the fact that it becomes revelation to us.").  One can even argue that there is a sort of right-wing Hegelianism at work in the broader structure of Barth's thinking about God and Scripture, although it would take a lengthy paper to flesh that out that assertion.  

Implications for the Church--We currently see a revival of interest in Karl Barth, as well as some shifts in scholarly views of Barth (from what may be called "neo-orthodoxy" to "neo-Barthianism").  Those old enough to remember will recall that the influence of Barth waned dramatically after (and even before) his death in 1968, as many of his former devotees moved headlong in the direction of theological liberalism.  Reasons for this are not difficult to discern.  His dialectical views on history and Scripture were largely exercises in equivocation that left no firm place for Christians to stand.  

To the surprise of many, Barth is now once again "front burner" in the theological world.  Some of this interest is due to the work of theologians such as Bruce McCormack at Princeton Theological Seminary, which has been aptly termed a "Barthian hothouse."  But the current culture also seems to be primed for such a revival.  With the cultural shift from modernity to post-modernity, many have sought a nonfoundationalist "third way" that avoids what are thought to be the rationalist pitfalls of evangelicalism and liberalism (for an accessible treatment of this trend in Barth interpretation, see William Stacy Johnson, "Barth and Beyond," Christian Century [May 2, 2001]: 16-20).  The Neo-Barthian reading has played a significant role here, despite the fact that McCormack himself has been critical of attempts to enlist Barth in the cause of Postmodernity.  But the temptation to enroll Barth in the cause of contemporary theological programs remains strong, especially on the more conservative end of the mainline theological spectrum.  Such people, however, are likely to find themselves betrayed in the end.  For example, McCormack's PTS colleague Stacy Johnson warns against attempts to co-opt Barth by more conservative elements in the PCUSA, rightly noting that Barth's theology can as easily be taken in other directions.

To reckon with Barth, then, is to encounter one whose theology later inspired liberation theologians in Latin America and antiapartheid theologians in South Africa--a theologian who felt  that what you pray for, you must also work for.  To invoke the mantle of Barth for the cause of a narrow doctrinal confessionalism, in other words, simply defies the record of history, as is happening today when ultraconservative activists appeal to Barth and the Confessing Church movement against such things as the full inclusion of people who are homosexual or against any sort of new thinking in theology.  Not only is the birthright of the [German] Confessing Church movement more ambiguous than they suppose, but Barth himself is more complex and his pronouncements more determined by his social situation than some would care to admit. (Johnson, "Barth and Beyond," 16)

When all is said and done, it is not at all clear to me that the "neo-Barthian" Barth provides a better foundation for the church's witness than did the old "neo-orthodox" Barth.  Moreover, the historic influence of Barth--with his problematic view of Scripture, implicit universalism, and low ecclesiology--on churches in Europe, Scotland, and America suggests that the current renaissance of interest in Barth is unlikely to empower the mission of Reformed churches today.  

I am also struck by the parallel to Friedrich Schleiermacher--a comment that will probably surprise those who hold to the conventional view of Barth as an implacable opponent of the "father of liberal theology."   In the mid-nineteenth-century context Schleiermacher was trumpeted as a bridge from the barren rationalism of Kant to orthodoxy.  The church historian Philip Schaff, for example, argued in this fashion (see his Germany: Its Universities, Theology, and Religion [Philadelphia: Lindsay and Blakiston, 1857], 320).  But bridges can be crossed in both directions, and while initially the preponderance of traffic over die Schleiermacherbrücke was toward more conservative forms of theology, the long-term story has been quite the opposite.  I sense that the same is and will continue to be true of Barth.

- WBE

*A self-described "paleo-orthodox ecclesial Calvinist," Dr. Evans is the Younts Prof. of Bible and Religion at Erskine College in Due West, SC.  He holds degrees from Taylor University, Westminster Theological Seminary, and Vanderbilt University.   He is the author of Imputation and Impartation: Union with Christ in American Reformed Theology (Paternoster, 2008).  He also served as an Assistant Editor of the New Geneva Study Bible/Reformation Study Bible and as Moderator of the 2005 General Synod of the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church.  In his spare time he writes the ARP Adult Quarterly Sunday School curriculum for the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church.